The Music Critic and Reform

Should a journalist writing on the current practice of
Catholic music include practical suggestions for remedy and reform with his
criticism?

The task of a critic is aesthetic, literary and sometimes
scholarly in nature. His goal is to uphold high standards.

By contrast, the task of the reformer is political or
ecclesiastical (and possibly theological where the Church is concerned). Yet
practical experience — with music and its performance — must inform both the
critic and the reformer.

To give an example of how a critic might get into deep
water, one may show that it is better to have no music at Mass than bad music
and that the flourishing undergrowth of volunteer music in the Church needs a
pruning.

However, the practical question of how to implement this
“pruning” leads quickly upward in Church administration, probably to the
bishops. The critic would not be in over his head in the observation that this
pruning needs to take place.

But should he step into the political realm and suggest that
the U.S. Catholic bishops order this pruning?

If the critic suggests practical remedies — based upon
practical experience — a danger still remains that he may be stepping into
areas upon which he is less qualified to speak — political matters,
ecclesiastical regulation and moral theology.

I have for my writing the following policy: If the critic
(me) fears that his criticism in a given area is falling on deaf ears because
of some practical situation, then he may suggest practical remedies in order to
open the minds of his readers to the idea that solutions are possible — and
thus open the minds of those same readers to the higher standards he is
defending.

Where people have deaf ears to criticism because they think
no remedy exists, I think it may be allowable to suggest remedies so that good
criticism may be more easily taken to heart. The critic is not insisting that
his are the only remedies and that he alone knows the way to reform; he is
saying, “Don’t close your mind to improvement; reform is practical and
possible. Here is an example of what can be done.”

There may be any number of musical issues where deaf ears to
criticism exist because of a status quo. I will here name one that can be used
to dismiss musical criticism: money restraints — the low budget (or no budget)
for music that exists in American Catholic parishes everywhere (except in a
precious few cathedrals where lack of money is not an excuse).

Criticism may be dismissed with, “What can you do when there
is no money available for music?” Here are a few answers that I offer in order
to encourage those worried about budgets.

Asking for better folk music at Mass requires no money, only
better musical supervision. The same is true of the recognition that no music
at Mass is better than bad music at Mass — it does not require money, only
competent supervision.

To ask for better Hispanic music at Spanish-language Mass
also would require only better supervision. To ask an existing choir to do
better music and to reach into the literature of traditional Catholic music,
again, is not budgetary — unless more rehearsal is required.

To ask that existing music publishers exercise higher
standards in future publications is also not necessarily a budget question in
publication.

In the above cases, what is needed is a more competent
supervision. But, you ask, could not this competent musical supervision cost
money? Again, not necessarily. Here are some ideas for competent supervision —
short term and long term.

First of all, good Catholic music criticism could serve as
free-of-charge supervision to any fairly competent musician already serving in
a parish. Someone need only ask the musician to follow it. It might also serve
as a guide to any parish council member with knowledge of music.

Other ideas: A non-profit Catholic music society might be
quickly formed in a given region to provide a more competent guidance to more
than one parish. Such a society might provide to many parishes — at low or no
cost — the guidance needed to implement the no-cost improvements mentioned
above.

Music publishers already seek out and hire editors whose job
it is to make decisions on music. In their case, they need only to take heed to
music criticism and higher standards.

I have just set forth a few practical remedies to the
“low-budget, no-budget” problem. There are others, but today I content myself
with the above.

My message in mentioning them is: Take heart — improvement
is possible, even without money. Therefore, no one need fear to listen to music
criticism and take to heart higher standards.

Comments

Join the Discussion

We encourage a lively and honest discussion of our content. We ask that charity guide your words.
By submitting this form, you are agreeing to our discussion guidelines.
Comments are published at our discretion. We won’t publish comments that lack charity, are off topic, or are more than 400 words.
Thank you for keeping this forum thoughtful and respectful.